|
Cannabis
and Schools School
Trustees Responses
6. Research Findings:
6.1. Stated drugs policies
All schools taking part in
this project forbade cannabis use at school or during
school hours. Use of alcohol or tobacco was also
forbidden. However, not all of the schools had a specific
policy for the management of students caught with
cannabis, and in such cases management was based on the
policy for general disciplinary issues. In two cases, our
request that the school be involved in this research
prompted the establishment or revision of the
school’s drugs policy. In another case, the research
coincided with a review of policy and the interview
process was considered helpful in clarifying issues.
Although schools had to
consider each case individually, in all but one school
the usual course of management for students caught with
cannabis was for the principal to immediately suspend
those involved. Suspension was usually indefinite and, as
was the requirement, these cases then came before the
board to consider and decide on ongoing management.
Top | Back | Home
6.2. How the cannabis was
discovered
There were a number of
ways in which cannabis use or possession came to the
attention of the teachers/principal In some situations
the students were caught outright. In others they were
approached after information from other students or
parents was given to the principal or a teacher. When
other students had informed teachers, there was the
difficulty of ensuring the students were rewarded for
their behaviour without putting them in an embarrassing
or difficult situation with their peers for 'telling
tales'. Reporting on one such incident, a respondent
stated:
It was very carefully
done. No-one was ever told the identity of the kids who
came in but they were acknowledged. They found some way
to give them a special certificate to recognise the fact
that they had done this sort of thing without naming what
they had done. They said these kids .... must be rewarded
because they have taken responsibility for their school.
One respondent arranged
for all staff at the school to attend a session about
cannabis at which they were shown samples. The aim of
this session was to ensure that all teachers were able to
identify cannabis and signs of use so that those teachers
who did report possession or use by students were not
implicating themselves as apparent users.
Top | Back | Home
6.3. The procedure
The initial steps:
Although differences
occurred in the strategies or approaches used for
subsequent management of students, all but one of the
schools taking part in this study suspended students for
involvement with cannabis in the first instance. Even
boards which were strongly opposed to the continued
suspension/expulsion of students nevertheless accepted
that students be suspended temporarily initially. For the
purposes of this study then a distinction needs to be
made between an initial (or temporary) suspension which
usually lasted no longer than 7 days and an extended or
continued suspension which could last for weeks or months
or go on indefinitely, being akin to an expulsion.
The one school which had
not immediately suspended students for cannabis
involvement reported the incident had occurred just prior
to the interview and that it was the school’s first.
In line with the general philosophy of the school, the
incident was dealt with in ‘a constructive rather
than punitive way’ by considering it a ‘health
and life-chances issue in the first instance’.
Rather than focusing on and accusing a small group of
individuals, a larger `at-risk’ group of students
were identified, all of whom had had some link with the
cannabis incident or those directly involved. These
students and their families/whanau were invited to attend
a seminar on cannabis given by a member of the Drugs
Squad. In a letter sent to parents it was made clear that
the students were not being accused of drug use but they
were considered `at risk’. In addition, the school
offered additional help to those who needed it in the way
of guidance or counselling. All students and their
families were made aware, however, that drug use in the
school would not be tolerated and that any further
infringement of this rule would result in immediate
suspension and a disciplinary hearing before the Board.
Parental response to this approach was extremely
positive.
In those schools where the
students were immediately suspended by the principal, the
students’ parents were notified, given an
explanation of the incident and asked to take their child
home. The students were then not allowed back to school
and were required, with their parents/whanau, to attend
the disciplinary hearing with the Board of Trustees at
which their future would be decided. Parents were given a
written report about the incident before this meeting and
were advised that they could bring an advocate if they
wanted. In addition, school guidance counselling services
were offered to students should they need them.
Although the use and
possession of cannabis is illegal, no legal action ensued
from the incidents. The Youth Aid section of the Police
were called in some cases, but it was felt that they
could do little more than the schools were doing.
However, some schools invited either the Police or a
member of the Drugs Squad to address those students
involved about the consequences of cannabis use. One
school involved the Police to establish that the
substance was in fact cannabis before proceeding with
suspension.
The Board of Trustees
Disciplinary Hearing:
All the respondents
interviewed indicated that, when a student was suspended
in the first instance by the principal, they were aware
of their legal obligation under the Education Act 1989 to
meet with them and their family/whanau within a specified
period of time and to give them a fair hearing. They
received a detailed report of the incident from the
principal at least 24 hours before the meeting and met
together as a board just prior to meeting with the
student in order to discuss the case. Three main options
were open to the board: to consider the process to date
sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the behaviour and
to lift the suspension; to reinstate the student with
certain conditions; or to expel or indefinitely suspend
the student.
When a number of students
were suspended together, they and their family/whanau
were usually given the option of meeting with the board
individually or collectively (on a marae, if requested).
Some boards met with them together initially, then with
each family separately. Two respondents related incidents
where a joint meeting of all students and their families
had occurred but had not worked very well and the cases
were not adequately dealt with until each was seen
individually. One of the other advantages of seeing
students individually was that they were not constrained
by a need to impress their peers.
Boards needed to be
convinced that what was reported to have happened
actually happened and this depended on an admission from
the student. Some board members commented that if the
student denied their involvement, the board had to give
them the benefit of the doubt. Since the board’s
role was not a legal one, board members did not want to
go to great lengths to prove or disprove that particular
students were involved. Instead they relied on the
student's integrity and the stories of other students
involved to ascertain who was involved. One respondent
said,
We have to be
convinced that that’s what they've done. If
there is any doubt in the board's mind we do not
expel under any circumstances for whatever reason
they are in front of us. If there is some doubt then
its given to the student and the student goes back
into school..…..We're not an investigation firm
so we've got to say to ourselves "Hey, listen is
this person really doing it or not?". We might
have all the evidence in the world and to us
it’s really not good enough if the parents and
the child come out and say "No, we're not
users". Now if the parents say "Oh yes, we
do have a problem" and the kid is sitting there
saying "No", then we usually say to the
parents "Well, what do you think?"
However, one respondent
commented that this can lead to some difficulties in
situations where, despite strong indications that they
had been involved with cannabis, a student refuses to
acknowledge it. She gave an example in which her board
felt that they could not punish harshly those students
who had confessed and been very honest about their
involvement when another student, who they strongly
suspected of being involved, was not punished at all
because he would not admit to being involved.
In general, respondents
indicated that their board took its responsibilities very
seriously, that it wanted to do what was best for the
student and the school and was aware that its decision
could have a profound impact on the student’s life.
Some stressed that an important part of the disciplinary
hearing was to try to obtain an understanding of the
student’s life situation and what may have caused
them to act as they had. They also impressed upon
students that their actions had consequences for which
they must take responsibility.
All respondents were aware
of the need to inform students that they could bring
advocate(s) to the meeting with the board, and it
appeared that students and their families often did so.
One respondent commented that a good advocate who
represented the student’s interests by building on
their positive qualities could facilitate a favourable
outcome for the student.
If you've got
somebody, a strong advocate, who's actually able to
articulate the strengths of the student, particularly
those we might not otherwise be aware of, I guess
that does play quite an important part in our
decision making.
Three respondents
commented that the involvement of an advocate who took an
adversarial position did not necessarily make the process
easier or fairer. The adversarial approach was perceived
to be obstructive and antagonistic to the more
collaborative or inclusive approach taken by these
boards.
But [the advocates]
come in and, instead of doing it as a healing process
whereby you get to the truth and you try and work it
out and you do the best for the kids, they're
actually coming from ‘you’re innocent until
you’re proven guilty’ and letting the kids
know that and that you don't have to admit to
anything. I know where they're coming from but
they're not helping those kids, the 14 year olds, in
their development.
The process of coming to a
decision about the student’s future was often
time-consuming because the different views of board
members had to be considered and a consensus had to be
reached. However, in general respondents indicated that
they were happy with the processes they undertook and
that board members were prepared to put in the time to
ensure that the final decision was one that they all
found acceptable.
It's often a
compromise. Some people would say, "It's their
lives and we can't kick them out no matter what they
have done, if we believe that they are
contrite." And at the other extreme, there are
probably one or two that say we aren’t kicking
out enough. Eventually we come through to a decision.
We have a big discussion and it’s not fast,
it’s a slow process, but you have to do it
properly.
Terms of reinstatement:
The decision to reinstate
a student, rather than extend their suspension
indefinitely or expel, depended on the particular
circumstances of the case, the previous behaviour of the
student and the general philosophy of the school. Where a
student was reinstated, conditions were usually imposed.
The conditions set by boards ranged from those which
emphasised the health needs of the student to those which
were strictly punitive. Some schools instituted both
types of conditions.
Conditions of
reinstatement which primarily focused on the wellbeing of
the student included the requirement to attend a drug
education programme or a drug rehabilitation or, doing a
project on the dangers of drugs or attending guidance
counselling with the school counsellor. One school had a
scheme in which students identified as `at risk’ for
general behavioural problems were assigned a case
manager, and recommended that students reinstated after
cannabis incidents join this scheme. The aim of these
approaches was to ensure that the students received both
the knowledge and support they needed to promote their
educational and physical well being. Some schools
restricted these conditions to `good’ students who
had made a `mistake’, while others also used them
for those students who had more general behavioural
problems.
Normally we put
them back into school if we feel they got caught up
with their peers and just happened to have a puff or
two and they were just part of the scene that was
happening. We would then encourage them to go to the
counsellors.
I’m thinking
of a couple of youngsters in this last month or so.
The board took the view that this was an experimental
puff and that they had learnt a huge lesson and were
very contrite. So we used the school counselling
service and school guidance.
We really aim to
rehabilitate. We don’t aim to be absolutely
punitive. Because in our experience kids smoking dope
at school is just a brazen act of stupidity,
really…. We're a very student-centred school and
we really try to set a kid on the right path in terms
of making their education worthwhile. Because there's
nothing worse than, say, teachers or a whole group of
teachers spending four years or so with a kid,
working really hard with the money, to have them
expelled for an act of stupidity…. Obviously
each case is different but most of the hearings take
two hours or something, and in two hours you can do
quite a lot of setting straight.
We sit down, we
talk to the kids. We talk to them about what's
happening, about why they're smoking drugs, we talk
about whether they're using it outside, we tell them
that we've got no jurisdiction over what they're
doing outside, unless they come in under the
influence of course….We talk to them about what
it's doing, about things like drug rehab programmes.
Frequently they are required to go through one of the
drug rehab courses which the guidance counsellor will
often source for them.
Some schools took a more
punitive approach to the issue, although stopping short
of further suspension/expulsion. Conditions of
reinstatement which were of a punitive nature included
detentions, withdrawal of privileges and community
service. Separation from one’s peers was also a
punishment although in some cases this intervention was
used more to remove the student from adverse peer
influences. Community service, either inside the school
or in the local community, was commonly mentioned as a
condition of reinstatement. The number of hours of
service was stipulated and this had to be undertaken in
the student's own time. If it was within the school, it
was usually done during breaks or after school. This had
the added benefit of preventing the student mixing with
his/her friends and being tempted to
‘re-offend’ for the duration of the punishment.
If the community service was done outside the school, it
was essential that it was able to be well monitored by a
responsible adult. Some schools required written
contracts, signed by the student, a parent and the
principal, under which the student promised to abide by
certain rules and undertake certain tasks for a stated
period of time. This was then monitored by staff. One
school in an area with perceived high levels of cannabis
use in the community insisted that the Youth Aid branch
of the local Police monitor those students who had
conditional reinstatement.
There may be a
punishment involved. For example: community service
of some sort, which could be painting the walls in
the school or something like that; withdrawal of
privileges; and maybe some sort of detention. In some
cases we might get them to report back to the board a
couple of times and perhaps write a letter of apology
or something like that, depending on how they have
been caught, and how they have dealt with the
situation when they were caught.
There hasn’t
been one case that I’m aware of where we have
expelled the kids straight away, because generally
they're very contrite. And we always give them pretty
severe punishments in terms of depriving them of
their privileges in school - meaning that during
their free time they are not able to enjoy the
company of their friends. So they are basically given
quite a long period of social misery. It’s all
that's left to a school really, and in terms of
sanctions, you can't actually do much.
When a student was
reinstated, all the schools were adamant that this was
not to be seen as a soft option. Rather, it was a warning
that any further offending would be taken very seriously
and possibly result in suspension/expulsion.
On top of that will
be signing a contract acknowledging wrong-doing and
spelling out as much as we dare the realisation that
they are in a last chance situation, that in the
event of a breach the understanding is quite clearly
that they would have no second chances. Now the
wording is a little careful there, because again we
believe that the law says that you have to be quite
careful about saying you have used up all your
chances… so we genuinely mean that, yes, you
will have another fair hearing, but all of what you
have done will be taken into account.
But if it goes on
and we're not satisfied that things are happening or
they are not adhering to the conditions of going back
into school, we will pull them out and expel them.
That hasn't happened, though. Where we have put kids
back into school for whatever reason, usually they
pull up their socks and realise that they have to do
something about it.
I think that
[expulsion] is really unfair. So that's what we try
and avoid. It's much too high a price to pay. But if
the kid does it again, then as far as I'm concerned
that's an admission that that's the price they want
to pay. And we make it very clear at the beginning,
if we're reinstating them, that will be the only time
they'll be reinstated.
Respondents reported that
the parents of children who were reinstated were very
grateful to the school and the board for the processes
undertaken. It seemed that parents were supportive of
firm management of their children, but were grateful that
this did not extend to suspension/expulsion. In fact,
some respondents reported that, following such decisions,
the school received phone calls from parents expressing
their gratitude and praising the way in which their child
had been dealt with. One intermediate school which was
very public with its processes also received calls from
parents of other students praising the boards management
of the incident. However, one respondent from a liberal
school reported that parental response to their
reinstating students was sometimes mixed, with both
expressions of gratitude for the process used and blame
because the school had exposed their child to the drug in
the first place.
It’s one of
incredible gratitude for a second chance option for
their kids and a real genuine commitment to try and
assist their own child to see the error of their
ways. There are also some concerns that "my
child would never have done this if it wasn't for the
fact that it is so prevalent at the
school"…. So there’s that split
feeling there. "If the school was clean then my
child wouldn't have been involved" and then, on
the other hand, a great appreciation from them that
they've been given a pretty fair sort of a hearing.
The decision to extend
suspension or expel:
Some schools took a strong
moral stand on all cannabis incidents believing that the
most appropriate action was extended
suspension/expulsion. Others chose this option in cases
which they considered to be particularly serious. If the
board's decision was indefinite suspension until the
student's 16th birthday, the school was required to find
the student another school. The principal usually took on
this responsibility and it appeared that there were
cooperative relations on such matters between principals
in the same geographical area. Sometimes neither staff
nor students were aware that a new student who had been
accepted by the principal had been suspended from another
school. Schools were entitled to refuse a student who had
been suspended in the first instance, but if a school was
not found for the student within a reasonable period of
time, the Ministry of Education intervened and could
require a school to take the student. Because of the
initial right of refusal, however, finding another school
could be a delicate process. Several respondents referred
to the Activity Centre or Metropolitan School as useful
last resorts for students caught with cannabis who had
also been disciplined frequently for general behavioural
problems and who were difficult to place elsewhere. Some
expressed concern about anecdotal comments that these
schools’ existence might be in jeopardy because of
their unconventional approach to education.
When a board was deciding
whether to extend suspension or not, the seriousness of
the incident was a consideration. For example, it was
more likely that a person supplying cannabis to others
would have their suspension extended than one who was
caught simply possessing or using. The act of supplying
cannabis, even if no money was involved, meant that the
student was considered to be endangering other
students’ well-being. The student’s past record
was also taken into account. If they had a history of
‘bad behaviour’, the cannabis incident might be
considered the ‘last straw’.
In some cases, board
members saw extending suspension indefinitely or
expelling the student as in the student’s interest
because it enabled them to break out of a peer group or a
situation which was not good for them and to start anew.
In reference to a student who had brought cannabis to
school for others, one respondent said:
We felt that he
couldn't come back [into the school] and not be
pressured again. So at that stage we said it was
better for him to get a fresh start at a new school
and we found one that was easy for him to go to. And
that's some of it, it's better for them not to be
with that same group of kids again.
Alternatively, the
decision may have been made in the interests of other
students. This was particularly so when the student was
known to have supplied cannabis or to have a history of
disruptive behaviour.
In the last case
that came before the board, there were reasons for
expelling the student in combination with the
cannabis offence, shall we say. There was a history
of bad behaviour. There was a child who was able to
influence her peers and we felt therefore that in
taking her out of the school and putting her into
another group, she would no longer have that group to
be led by her.
Even when expulsion was
the outcome, some boards felt it necessary to work
through the issues with the student, rather than simply
‘off- load’ the student.
I don't think we've
ever had one that we can't find a school for.... and
I think people do realise that we work through things
with these kids. And this is what we say to the
parents - if we don't work through with you, we can't
recommend to another school. And you've got to have
that recommendation from the last school. Because
people won't touch you. They know they don’t
have to take you.
Top | Back | Home
6.4. Decision-making dilemmas
for board members
The decisions faced by the
board were not taken lightly and several dilemmas
encountered while making these decisions were mentioned.
The interests of the
student versus the interests of the school:
A commonly mentioned
dilemma was trying to find a balance between what was in
the best interests of the student and what was in the
best interests of the school or of other students within
the school. This involved weighing up the message given
to society and other students that drugs would not be
tolerated in school, versus making sure that the
educational future of the student was not jeopardised.
One respondent, whose
board was in the process of deciding the future of a
bright student who had supplied cannabis to other
students, stated:
Practicalities say
we should expel him, but as educationalists we don't
want to see wasted talent. I don't, I definitely
don't. But again the point is, how safe is he going
to be in the school and how safe are the other pupils
going to be?.... So what do we do, throw him out?
Because he's a Maori too. Personally I'm sick of
seeing Maori [statistics] somewhere down the bottom.
And here's a child that has the ability, given the
right mental support, to achieve in a big way. But
our responsibility to the other kids is a priority.
Another whose school took
a fairly firm stand on cannabis stated:
Well, the main
issue is always the responsibility and obligation the
college has for the needs of that particular student,
as against the need for the other students of the
college to know that that behaviour is unacceptable.
And to try to ensure that other students are not
harmed by the actions of that particular student.
It's always a big problem and I think I could
probably say that our board always wrestles with
that. Because we're not the sort of board that would
be too hasty expelling a student. I suppose that's
part of our school philosophy, that we have a strong
emphasis upon care of the student. We have a pastoral
care committee which does a lot of work on tending to
the needs of the students within the college.
When asked what the board
then does in that situation, he replied:
I suppose we just
try to weigh up as best we can what might be the
consequences of the student remaining in the college.
One of the things that would come in to that is
whether there's been any earlier behavioural
problems, the seriousness of the incident itself, and
perhaps even if there's been any indication of
contempt for college rules. I mean, if the student's
been told not to smoke, or not to have alcohol, or
not to do this or that previously. Is this incident
also in the light of contempt for school discipline
rules? Also we would take in to account what steps
the student or their parents have taken to deal with
the problem, and I think it's true to say that we
would be influenced enough in a kindly way towards
somebody who had actually done something about their
problem, if there was seen to be a problem.
Another consideration
which added to boards’ decision-making dilemmas and
difficulties was how their decisions might affect the
already heavy workload of teachers. Given the demands
already on teachers to undertake social and disciplinary
responsibilities over and above their teaching
responsibilities, some boards expressed reluctance to
place too much extra pressure on them by reinstating
students with conditions which required a lot of
monitoring.
Really you are
coming down to - do we continue the suspension or do
we bring them back in? And then if we are going to
bring them back into the school, is that going to
involve an awful lot of teacher time and effectively
human and other resources? If they are doing
community service, for example, that is going to take
some form of supervision, normally by the teacher? If
it’s going to be perhaps counselling, again it's
taking up someone’s time.
There have been
suggestions from time to time that, if we have been a
little bit soft, shall we say, and perhaps allowed a
student to come back to college in a cannabis
situation, some teachers have been upset by that
because they see it as undermining the discipline of
the college. And their expectation, I suppose, would
have been that in that particular case the student
would be expelled. So that really makes it even more
difficult for us to balance the decision to be made.
Avoiding passing on the
problem to other schools:
Some respondents were
concerned that suspension/expulsion should not be used to
transfer problems onto other schools. They were aware
that this did not necessarily serve the student or the
new school well.
We are more
seriously considering the effects of that expulsion
on the child and on the school that they are going
to. And really we are saying we cannot just off-load
our problems onto another school. I think perhaps
that did happen a bit in the past.
Both intermediate school
respondents felt that it was important to be very firm
with students caught with cannabis because it would be
more readily available to them at secondary school.
However, they wanted to deal with the issue internally
and did not see passing it on to another school to be the
solution. One respondent from an intermediate school
stated:
We dealt with it
harshly. The kids were all punished and it wasn't
just, "You naughty boy, you shouldn't have done
that". They were all seen to be being punished
but because they were only kids - at that age they
are still only kids - we didn't take the hard line of
disrupting their entire lives. I mean we've disrupted
their lives enough by what we're doing at school. But
we're keeping it within the school. We're dealing
with it ourselves as opposed to putting the problem
on to somebody else. You know, these are our kids and
we'll deal with them, type of thing, as opposed to,
"this kid’s been naughty, you take
him".
Attracting students to
the school:
Some schools were
concerned that their involvement in cannabis issues might
mean that they would not be able to attract new students
to the school and that if their rolls dropped they could
lose staff, since staffing levels each year are based on
the number of students enrolled. This meant that they had
to be seen to be taking a firm line because some parents
would be wary of sending their children to schools that
were known to have drugs.
If you're seen to
be too light on these things, parents won't send
their kids to the school, because they think,
"oh, that's a drugs school", where in
actual fact we're trying to rid the problem. We had
to take into consideration what parents not at the
school now are thinking about doing with their
children next year, because if the school roll drops
we lose staff.
An intermediate school
which provided manual skills programmes for students from
other schools also had its reputation to protect.
We have to look at
how this is going to affect our other children in the
school and our reputation as far as our visiting
schools go. …So our manual schools won't turn
around and say, "Hey, look. they've got dope in
that school, we don't want our school going
there."
Going public about the
incident:
Concern about the
reputation of the school was an issue in trying to decide
whether to be public about the incidents. Some schools
felt it was important to bring the issue out into the
open to avoid rumour and speculation. This was seen as a
positive gesture in that it signalled acknowledgement of
the problem and an openness in dealing with it. However,
it also ran the risk of media attention which branded the
school as one with drug problems.
People looked at us
when we made it public. "Oh, you're bringing our
school into bad repute.".... Basically why we
went public was to say, "Hey, we are dealing
with the problem, we were dealing with it in a
positive way so that the people know what's
happening, so that the school knows that this does
not happen every day".
It was all around
this local school that now we're not only a rough
school but we're also a `drug' school. The fact that
we dealt with it and we didn't hide it or anything,
people just don't think about that.
So you are actually
drawing attention, not to attempting to have a
solution, but to a drug problem which may exacerbate
and worsen the view of your contributing public. So
rather than getting positive feedback from people
saying, "look, they're doing something,
They’re trying something and tightening the
place up", you could equally get a negative
reaction of … "they must be having real
problems".
One respondent commented
that there was little media coverage of the positive ways
in which schools were dealing with cannabis, and this
meant that those schools that were dealing with it well
were not visible to the public.
Use in the community:
Another point made was
that, because cannabis use was common in the wider
community and, in some cases, within the student’s
own home, it was unfair or ineffective to severely punish
the individual child.
I'm just aghast
when I hear schools expelling kids, punishing them,
ruining their lives basically for an
indiscretion….. In the wider community that all
the kids come from, people smoke dope all the time.
That's totally apparent from newspapers and
everything... It’s so widespread in society and
to have a kid expelled, well their education's ruined
really and you're just doing such a bad thing for
that kid.
A lot of schools
don’t want to admit that there is an under
current of drug use, not so much with the children,
but with the families. It’s easy for us to pick
up on the children, but the fall down is when they go
home. There’s no support from homes.
On the other hand, while
acknowledging this view, one respondent believed that,
because cannabis use was against the law, the student
needed to face the consequences.
I think some people
are of a mind that "Look, we’ve three
generations of smoking cannabis, it’s not
wrong"…. And they can’t see why
students should be dragged out because of it…
(But) the law tells us they have broken the law,
therefore we have to do something about it.
Top | Back | Home
|
